MovieChat Forums > Risen (2016) Discussion > Best Christian Movie I've Seen In -Ages-

Best Christian Movie I've Seen In -Ages-

posted 8 years ago by mail-2217
5 replies | jump to latest

I usually -hate- 'Christian' movies. Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em. So I passed seeing it in the theatres.

Because such films (and I use the term loosely) are almost always either done by people who obviously have no faith and are trying to 're-think' the concept (Noah) or they're the kind of laughable right wing bilge one sees on cable tv 'family networks'.

I have often wondered -why- it's so hard to make a decent movie about Jesus. The story is so cinematic it almost writes itself.

Anyhoo, this was the first movie about Jesus that I have seen in decades that was respectful and not revisionist but also not childish.

And... go figure... it's actually not bad strictly viewed as a -film-.

But speaking as a person of faith, this is -very- refreshing. I hope it made enough money to encourage others to take a stab at other Biblical stories.

Why? I came into this game for the action, the excitement... Listen, kid, we're all in it together.

[–] AziziOthmanMY 8 years ago

why did I kept on seeing Shakespeare?

[–] Logan8888 7 years ago

It's refreshingly well done. Great movie telling a spin on the greatest true event that changed the course of humanity itself.

[–] jimprideaux2 7 years ago

I thought the Disciples were played rather well, except for the Disciple (Nathaniel?) being interrogated by the Tribune -- a little too spacy and over the top, but then it takes all kinds to make a world. But in other scenes interacting with themselves or with the risen Jesus they seemed very credible regular guys dealing with extraordinary events. Unlike the wooden disciples, eyes transfixed on Jesus, hanging on his every word, so often portrayed in these movies.

Also the risen Jesus seemed more approachable here. A risen human being at peace. The resurrection is what we all have to look forward too, Jesus being the first as Paul would say.

[–] bastasch8647 7 years ago

except for the Disciple (Nathaniel?) being interrogated by the Tribune -- a little too spacy and over the top

Yes indeed. What on earth was that supposed to be, to signify? I was embarrassed by it. At first it appeared to be the introduction of an interesting, subtle and perhaps even complex disciple. But no. He's only a scatterbrain. And why? The Gospels portray the disciples "warts and all", but except for Peter's continual "I don't get it" attitude, none of the Gospels present them as outright imbeciles. Adding imbecility to "Nathaniel's" character calls to mind Mel Gibson's addition of mind-numbing non-biblical/extra-biblical material to The Passion, to the same general effect. Why? Just...why?

[–] [email protected] (1636) 5 years ago

What was Gibson's add on you disagree with?